That wasn't me who said that. It was the CTO of Rackspace, a Billion dollar hosting company.

Where is Qualifications Inspector Houghtam when I need him?

LMAO, that whole article was FOS. Every "tech expert" they talked about admitted they haven't actually seen the application, yet "believed" it "had" to be 10 year old tech. And the only evidence they provide is that it looks "Web 1.0" from the 90s instead of "Web 2.0" enough to them. Which is ridiculous.

Experts don't behave that way.

Of course, a cursory glance tells me they are using JQuery, CSS layout, some unknown asynchronous framework (including a silly amount of client side rendering), SAML for distributed SSO, and a host of other perfectly "modern" tools and libraries that can be determined by inspecting the external interface. In other words, a pretty typical "Web 2.0" buzzword compliant external interface.

Now, it's possible the back end is some archaic monstrosity, but no one other than the dev group actually knows what they are doing in the back end.

And, the real gem is the idiotic comment about caching. Doesn't matter if you are "Web 2.0" buzzword compliant, caching issues can happen. If you have a javascript file that has a bug and also has a cache coherence issue in the browser, you'll have to clear your cache to get the client to download the patched version.

Looking at it, the problem isn't the technology they are using, the problem is pretty clearly management and timetable.

LMAO, that whole article was FOS. Every "tech expert" they talked about admitted they haven't actually seen the application, yet "believed" it "had" to be 10 year old tech.

Experts don't behave that way.

Of course, a cursory glance tells me they are using JQuery, CSS layout, some unknown asynchronous framework (including a silly amount of client side rendering), SAML for distributed SSO, and a host of other perfectly "modern" tools and libraries that can be determined by inspecting the external interface.

And, the real gem is the idiotic comment about caching. Doesn't matter if you are "Web 2.0" buzzword compliant, caching issues can happen. If you have a javascript file that has a bug and also has a cache coherence issue in the browser, you'll have to clear your cache to get the client to download the patched version.

Looking at it, the problem isn't the technology they are using, the problem is pretty clearly management and timetable.

(btw, I design and build web applications for a living)

I'm guessing you're only talking about the front-end, since the back-end hasn't been seen by very many people. But as far as the front-end goes you could be right. From history though, I'm pretty sure we can assume that whatever the government contractors wrote on the back end to interface with federal databases and carrier systems is a complete menagerie,

But that's neither here nor there, since it doesn't really matter as far as the problem goes.

You're right in that the worst problem was that the feds put off many really significant decisions until the last possible moment, including the decision to hide plan pricing until registration was successful. Politics often (usually?) bring considerations into projects that are antithetical to good project design.

But that always applies to both the technical and non-technical areas. And this was not at all hard to foresee, considering many have warned about this kind of epic flop for months. Although so far, it's been beyond even the most hardened skeptics' wildest imaginations.

I quoted expert opinion as reported by a major US newspaper. And said literally nothing about it. I can see why you want to manufacture an argument here. But there really isn't one to be had.

Yeah, you quoted a guy who was FOS without knowing anything about what was being said. You took his word with it because it aligned with your beliefs on the subject at hand. Next time due your diligence.

Yeah, you quoted a guy who was FOS without knowing anything about what was being said. You took his word with it because it aligned with your beliefs on the subject at hand. Next time due your diligence.

No offense, but you and Hough are going to have to duke it out to determine whether Hough's "Law of Infallible Authority" trumps Req's "Principle of Universally Suspect Authority."

I'm no fan of this administration, nor am I a computer expert, but it looks like this was designed pretty poorly.

Quote:

Truly disastrous architecture calls over 1,000 resources just to load one page
Even though I have only seen the public Javascript code and not the server-side processing code, the Javascript itself is truly disastrous -- on an epic scale.

For example, the Javascript file loaded for each user transfers all error messages, form field messages and front-end error messages from the server to the user's browser repeatedly for each cultural language supported by the system.

No, he was right. I could just tell you were pulling stuff out of your ass.

Hallowed be My Name.

"At the end of the Thomas Gospel, the disciples ask, 'When will the kingdom come?' And Jesus answers, 'The kingdom will not come by expectation. The kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it.'"

"At the end of the Thomas Gospel, the disciples ask, 'When will the kingdom come?' And Jesus answers, 'The kingdom will not come by expectation. The kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it.'"

Boom. Thomas throws a wrench into BBII favorite historical record.

2000 years from now, people may find and quote Gaff about what happened on 9/11. Should that be as accepted as the mainstream understanding of our day?

The only way an insurance model works is if everyone who *might* need it (which in the case of health care, is effectively 100%) pays premiums. And everyone pays for other people's health care one way or the other.

The only way treating health care as an optional, insurable thing makes any sense whatsoever is if we are willing to just let people (including lots and lots of children) suffer and/or die. Are you willing to do that?